life evolved from Fish, to amphibian, to reptile to mammal. Then why canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you say an amphibian is an example of a living transitional?

Fish, ambhibians, reptiles, and mammals are the major groups of vertebrates living today- possessing unique isolated, distict, characters (different heart designes, etc.). This is why we can easily classify lving things as "mammals" etc. Therefore, the claim that "an ambibilan is an example of a living transitional" is really based on the belief of evolution of the major groups from each other to begin with (since what is being disputed is whether or not the major groups descended from each other by means of numerous transitionals between these well known major groups, or wherther the major groups were created separately).

What would be a better candidate would be the finding of say a "living fossil" fish with clear transitional characteristics of another group. This is what evolutionists hoped to (and did not) find when the coelacanth was examined after being found to be alive.

In fact our ability to so easily classify the major groups of living animals into unique, distinct groups with all within the groups possessing all of the groups unique characters really demonstrates the systematic lack of living transitional forms. This often overlooked issue is really quite major in its implications.

life evolved from Fish, to amphibian, to reptile to mammal. Then why canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t you say an amphibian is an example of a living transitional?

Fish, ambhibians, reptiles, and mammals are the major groups of vertebrates living today- possessing unique isolated, distict, characters (different heart designes, etc.). This is why we can easily classify lving things as "mammals" etc. Therefore, the claim that "an ambibilan is an example of a living transitional" is really based on the belief of evolution of the major groups from each other to begin with (since what is being disputed is whether or not the major groups descended from each other by means of numerous transitionals between these well known major groups, or wherther the major groups were created separately).

The distinction gets clouded by the question. Springer asked for a living transition, I posed the fish as an example, one must then realise that the fish are not just going to wait around for millions of years, they too will evolve. So a living transitional can be represented by an existing species, but it will be very unlikely to not have undergone some change itself, especially the further back in time one goes.

What would be a better candidate would be the finding of say a "living fossil" fish with clear transitional characteristics of another group. This is what evolutionists hoped to (and did not) find when the coelacanth was examined after being found to be alive.

But what you are doing is only saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the exact transitional, realistically what are the odds of finding the exact linage? Chances are you will only find representational finds, in the tree of life. E.g. if fish evolved into land species and the first attempts produced 100 variants but over time only one succeeded (lets say no 5 is our descendant, but the only fossil out of those 100 we find is number 66. 66 will still be a transitional.

The distinction gets clouded by the question.Ã‚Â Springer asked for a living transition, I posed the fish as an example, one must then realise that the fish are not just going to wait around for millions of years, they too will evolve.

What I am asking for is a species that is transitional between one living species and another. As you seem to be suggesting, no living direct ancestors can be found. If you accept the theory of the geologic column, the fossil record tells us that numerous species do not change over eons of time. In fact, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires change. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that all transitionals will become obliterated over time. Furthermore, the theory of punctuated equilibrium suggests that only small populations of a species evolve.

So a living transitional can be represented by an existing species, but it will be very unlikely to not have undergone some change itself, especially the further back in time one goes.

Any living species would qualify as transitional by your definition, because you assume that everything is evolving. Your repeated assertion that it is a species is Ã¢â‚¬Å“very unlikely to not have undergone some change itselfÃ¢â‚¬Â is incorrect. Are you referring to microevolutionary change as Ã¢â‚¬Å“some changeÃ¢â‚¬Â? If so, that would still not preclude my contention that living transitional species should exist today.

But what you are doing is only saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the exact transitional, realistically what are the odds of finding the exact linage? Chances are you will only find representational finds, in the tree of life.Ã‚Â E.g. if fish evolved into land species and the first attempts produced 100 variants but over time only one succeeded (lets say no 5 is our descendant, but the only fossil out of those 100 we find is number 66.Ã‚Â 66 will still be a transitional.

I am not splitting hairs, as you imply. If evolution has been a global process in the past, it is reasonable to expect a continuum to exist between species, and that is far from the facts of nature.

There are no proven examples of transitional species anywhere. With the myriad of species we have available to analyze, we cannot link any one to another (excluding microevolution). There are no proven transitionals in the fossil record. There are some that are touted to be, but the interpretation is subjective and the data very limited. The coleolocanth was believed for years to be transitional between fish and amphibians. That interpretation was changed only after living specimens became available for study. Similarly, if all apes were unknown to man and a fossilized chimp skeleton were discovered, it would be widely proclaimed to be a human ancestor. However, with the living animal available for study, it is universally agreed that it is not.

My contention is that to prove that if transitionals ever existed, evolutionists should be able to find numerous unequivocal living examples, and they canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. Instead of rigorously evaluating living species, the appeal to the fossil record, which is a highly interpretative area in which they are free to imagine whatever they please.

The distinction gets clouded by the question. Springer asked for a living transition, I posed the fish as an example, one must then realise that the fish are not just going to wait around for millions of years, they too will evolve.

What I am asking for is a species that is transitional between one living species and another.

This is a slightly different question. Please clarify, do you mean you want a transitional for example between a Chimpanzee and a Gorilla (one living species and another)?

As you seem to be suggesting, no living direct ancestors can be found. If you accept the theory of the geologic column, the fossil record tells us that numerous species do not change over eons of time. In fact, there is nothing in evolutionary theory that requires change. Therefore, there is no reason to expect that all transitionals will become obliterated over time. Furthermore, the theory of punctuated equilibrium suggests that only small populations of a species evolve.

Correct, some species remain (outwardly) unchanged for eons.Correct, stable environments do not produce as much change as changing environments.Question if a transitional lives to the current does a fish qualify?

You seem not to be factoring in extinction, in addition to the Ã¢â‚¬ËœnaturalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ extinction caused by environmental change one should not forget this http://www.space.com...bar_000907.html

So a living transitional can be represented by an existing species, but it will be very unlikely to not have undergone some change itself, especially the further back in time one goes.

Any living species would qualify as transitional by your definition, because you assume that everything is evolving. Your repeated assertion that it is a species is Ã¢â‚¬Å“very unlikely to not have undergone some change itselfÃ¢â‚¬Â is incorrect. Are you referring to microevolutionary change as Ã¢â‚¬Å“some changeÃ¢â‚¬Â? If so, that would still not preclude my contention that living transitional species should exist today.

my emphasis

Please explain why you think it is incorrect.

Even if one entertains the concept of microevolution being distinct from macroevolution, if one found a fossil of a micro-evolved organism, would that qualify as a transitional? Say African and Indian elephant?

But what you are doing is only saying itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the exact transitional, realistically what are the odds of finding the exact linage? Chances are you will only find representational finds, in the tree of life. E.g. if fish evolved into land species and the first attempts produced 100 variants but over time only one succeeded (lets say no 5 is our descendant, but the only fossil out of those 100 we find is number 66. 66 will still be a transitional.

I am not splitting hairs, as you imply. If evolution has been a global process in the past, it is reasonable to expect a continuum to exist between species, and that is far from the facts of nature.

No it is not reasonable at all, as I attempted to show with the example above. Please demonstrate why you think it should be reasonable to find the exact linage (given the fossilisation process, animal migratory habits and changing environments).

There are no proven examples of transitional species anywhere. With the myriad of species we have available to analyze, we cannot link any one to another (excluding microevolution). There are no proven transitionals in the fossil record. There are some that are touted to be, but the interpretation is subjective and the data very limited. The coleolocanth was believed for years to be transitional between fish and amphibians. That interpretation was changed only after living specimens became available for study. Similarly, if all apes were unknown to man and a fossilized chimp skeleton were discovered, it would be widely proclaimed to be a human ancestor. However, with the living animal available for study, it is universally agreed that it is not.

My contention is that to prove that if transitionals ever existed, evolutionists should be able to find numerous unequivocal living examples, and they canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t. Instead of rigorously evaluating living species, the appeal to the fossil record, which is a highly interpretative area in which they are free to imagine whatever they please.

As a transitional Archaeopteryx qualifies nicely.

Living transitional is fraught with misunderstandings, e.g. would a non-gliding squirrel qualify as a living transitional, with the assumption that it is not yet evolved gliding membranes?

This is a slightly different question.Ã‚Â Please clarify, do you mean you want a transitional for example between a Chimpanzee and a Gorilla (one living species and another)?

I don't think a chimpanzee and a gorilla are related directly. If you can show me that a chimp evolved from a gorilla, then the gorilla would be transitional. In the evolutionary tree of life, all species that are "related" evolved from a "common ancestor."

Question if a transitional lives to the current does a fish qualify?

No, because a living fish is not a direct ancestor to anything on earth.

You seem not to be factoring in extinction, in addition to the Ã¢â‚¬ËœnaturalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ extinction caused by environmental change one should not forget this http://www.space.com...bar_000907.html

Yes, some things undergo extinction... but it is not even close to universal.

Even if one entertains the concept of microevolution being distinct from macroevolution, if one found a fossil of a micro-evolved organism, would that qualify as a transitional? Say African and Indian elephant?

Microevolution is irrelevant to the discussion. No one is arguing whether or not microevolution exists.

No it is not reasonable at all, as I attempted to show with the example above. Please demonstrate why you think it should be reasonable to find the exact linage (given the fossilisation process, animal migratory habits and changing environments).

I'm not asking for an "exact lineage". I'm asking for a single living example.

As a transitional Archaeopteryx qualifies nicely.

It's significant that you have to go to the fossil record to find a "transitional" because no living example exists. If Archaeopteryx is the best you can do, then your argument is indeed weak. If Archaeopteryx were alive today, it would not be regarded as "transitional", but as a peculaliar bird with some reptilian features. The monotremes, similarly, are odd mosaics but do not qualify as ancestors to mammals. One reason I'm discounting Archaeopteryx is because it had fully functional flight feathers and was apparently as capable of powered flight as modern birds. There are living examples of birds today that possess reptilian features (e.g., ostrich) and are in no way considered transitional.

Living transitional is fraught with misunderstandings, e.g. would a non-gliding squirrel qualify as a living transitional, with the assumption that it is not yet evolved gliding membranes?

You cannot find another mammal that is a direct ancestor to a flying squirrel. You can only offer conjectures that a hypothetical common ancestor existed. Given the fact that numerous living species are unchanged for "millions of years", then you should see living examples of direct lineage... and that is completely absent in all evolutionary trees of life.

chance>This is a slightly different question.Ã‚Â Please clarify, do you mean you want a transitional for example between a Chimpanzee and a Gorilla (one living species and another)?

SpringerI don't think a chimpanzee and a gorilla are related directly. If you can show me that a chimp evolved from a gorilla, then the gorilla would be transitional. In the evolutionary tree of life, all species that are "related" evolved from a "common ancestor."

Yes common ancestor, but what I was trying to clarify was that you wanted an example of two living species with one being the ancestor of the other, and presumably one of them remaining static while the other evolved more. Is this what you mean?

chance>Question if a transitional lives to the current does a fish qualify?Springer>No, because a living fish is not a direct ancestor to anything on earth.

Ok then itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more like a single species example you want not a whole category.

chance>You seem not to be factoring in extinction, in addition to the Ã¢â‚¬ËœnaturalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ extinction caused by environmental change one should not forget this http://www.space.com...bar_000907.html

Springer>Yes, some things undergo extinction... but it is not even close to universal.

I have seen reports that something in the order of 90% plus of all known species have gone extinct.

chance>As a transitional Archaeopteryx qualifies nicely.

Springer>It's significant that you have to go to the fossil record to find a "transitional" because no living example exists. If Archaeopteryx is the best you can do, then your argument is indeed weak. If Archaeopteryx were alive today, it would not be regarded as "transitional", but as a peculaliar bird with some reptilian features. The monotremes, similarly, are odd mosaics but in no way qualify as ancestors to mammals. One reason I'm discounting Archaeopteryx is because it had fully functional flight feathers and was apparently as capable of powered flight as modern birds. There are living examples of birds today that possess reptilian features (e.g., ostrich) and are in no way considered transitional.

Those reptilian features are significant, teeth, tail bone, claws on wing, less developed sternum.

Living transitional is fraught with misunderstandings, e.g. would a non-gliding squirrel qualify as a living transitional, with the assumption that it is not yet evolved gliding membranes?

You cannot find another mammal that is a direct ancestor to a flying squirrel. You can only offer conjectures that a hypothetical common ancestor existed. Given the fact that numerous living species are unchanged for "millions of years", then you should see living examples of direct lineage... and that is completely absent in all evolutionary trees of life.

Hang on, you asked for a living example, then discount the squirrel because lack of a common ancestor? The example was meant to demonstrate that the living non-flying squirrel is the ancestor that is still surviving today. I.e. there wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be a common ancestor other than the existing non-flying variety.

As another example the wolf is regarded as the ancestor to dogs, if you trace the ancestry back you should find this (simplified):

PastÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦.present.Wolf___wolf___wolf__\__wolf___wolf............ignor this line.....\_dog___dog.

Question, are you familiar with the term Ring Species? Do you consider this as an example of living transitionals.

Yes common ancestor, but what I was trying to clarify was that you wanted an example of two living species with one being the ancestor of the other, and presumably one of them remaining static while the other evolved more.Ã‚Â Is this what you mean?

Yes

Hang on, you asked for a living example, then discount the squirrel because lack of a common ancestor? The example was meant to demonstrate that the living non-flying squirrel is the ancestor that is still surviving today.Ã‚Â I.e. there wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be a common ancestor other than the existing non-flying variety.

I would be interested in proof of that... What sort of genetic evidence exists as proof that a squirrel is ancestral to a flying squirrel?

Those reptilian features are significant, teeth, tail bone, claws on wing, less developed sternum.

An ostrich has claws on its wings and a shallow sternum, yet it is not considered ancestral to modern birds. You are picking and choosing what you think is significant. It is significant that Archaeopteryx had fully developed feathers... Why can it not be considered a "mosaic" like the monotremes? They possess reptilian features and mammalian features, yet are not transitional. I see no difference. You've concluded that it's transitional because it fits evolution, not because the facts proclaim it to be such.

As another example the wolf is regarded as the ancestor to dogs, if you trace the ancestry back you should find this (simplified):PastÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦.present.Wolf___wolf___wolf__\__wolf___wolf............ignor this line.....\_dog___dog.

Wolf to dog is microevolution.

Question, are you familiar with the term Ring Species?Ã‚Â Do you consider this as an example of living transitionals.

My understanding of ring species would be that they represent microevolutionary change.

Hang on, you asked for a living example, then discount the squirrel because lack of a common ancestor? The example was meant to demonstrate that the living non-flying squirrel is the ancestor that is still surviving today. I.e. there wonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t be a common ancestor other than the existing non-flying variety.

I would be interested in proof of that... What sort of genetic evidence exists as proof that a squirrel is ancestral to a flying squirrel?

Would it matter if I could provide evidence? if your going to reject the example of Wolf to Dog as an example claiming it is not evolution but microevolution, I suspect you will do the same with the flying squirrels. However from the http://www.britannic.../article-226077

Flying squirrels constitute the subfamily Pteromyinae of the squirrel family (Sciuridae) within the order Rodentia. Some authorities regard flying squirrels as a family (Pteromyidae). A few species of anomalure are occasionally called scaly-tailed flying squirrels, but these rodents are classified in the family Anomaluridae. Some researchers have speculated that Pteromyinae is not a single group but members from two different clusters of tree squirrels or possibly nonsquirrel ancestors. Recent evidence derived from fossils and the anatomy of wrist and gliding membranes, however, indicates that all living flying squirrel species are closely related and likely evolved from a tree squirrel ancestor during the Oligocene Epoch (33.7 million to 23.8 million years ago).

Those reptilian features are significant, teeth, tail bone, claws on wing, less developed sternum.

An ostrich has claws on its wings and a shallow sternum, yet it is not considered ancestral to modern birds. You are picking and choosing what you think is significant. It is significant that Archaeopteryx had fully developed feathers... Why can it not be considered a "mosaic" like the monotremes? They possess reptilian features and mammalian features, yet are not transitional. I see no difference. You've concluded that it's transitional because it fits evolution, not because the facts proclaim it to be such.

What is a mosaic re animal classifications/evolution/creation?

Question, are you familiar with the term Ring Species? Do you consider this as an example of living transitionals.

My understanding of ring species would be that they represent microevolutionary change.

Seems to me this is an un-winnable argument, because the Fish to Man would qualify like the diagram above. If a pick a couple of animals that are too close you say itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not evolution but microevolution, if I pick a couple too far apart you say one is not the direct ancestor!

Would it matter if I could provide evidence? if your going to reject the example of Wolf to Dog as an example claiming it is not evolution but microevolution,...

Yes, I will always reject microevolution as evidence of macroevolution, because the two processes rely on different mechanisms. A collie can be selectively bred from a wolf. A bat cannot be selectively bred from a quadruped rodent. Thus, the extrapolation of one process to the other is illogical.

The link only states that flying squirrels and conventional squirrels are regarded by some as in the same family. No one is questioning that. There is no suggestion that the conventional squirrel is a precursor to the flying squirrelÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ only that they share a common ancestor.

What is a mosaic re animal classifications/evolution/creation?

A platypus is what I regard as mosaic, because it exhibits fully developed features of two different classes of animalsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hairy integument is as fully differentiated as the hair of other mammals. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reproductive system is likewise not transitional. In the case of Archaeopteryx, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s feathers are not transitionalÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ they are fully avian. It is a peculiar bird with some reptile-like features. You once stated that Ã¢â‚¬Å“cross-pollinationÃ¢â‚¬Â would be evidence of creation, yet you use Archaopteryx as evidence of evolution.

So you want something like this:PastÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Present

Rat___\____________________________RatÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦...Ã¢â‚¬Â¦..\__somethingÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦....Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦\__somethingÃ¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦Ã¢â‚¬Â¦....Ã¢â‚¬Â¦.\__________________________SquirrelSeems to me this is an un-winnable argument, because the Fish to Man would qualify like the diagram above.

There is some common ground that we need to establish. No direct ancestors exist in the evolutionary tree of life. A cod or trout did not evolve into a salamander. Some common ancestor of the cod or trout evolved. Modern fish are peripheral branches, not direct ancestors to man. As I have emphasized numerous times, no evolutionary tree of life suggests that a fish is a direct ancestor of man, only that the both share a hypothetical common ancestor.

If a pick a couple of animals that are too close you say itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not evolution but microevolution, if I pick a couple too far apart you say one is not the direct ancestor!

You still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t given me any reason as to why a direct ancestor doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist in the living world. If man evolved from a fish-like animal, then why have the countless transitional forms that must have existed between fish and man become extinct? A gorilla is not a direct ancestorÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ neither is a chimp, dog, lizard, salamander, or any species of fish. If you contend that all human ancestors have continually evolved, then youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re contradicting the observation that many species are static over eons of time. The theory of evolution does not require that species changeÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ yet youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re stating that everything invariably doesÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ thus explaining the lack of any direct living ancestors.

The link only states that flying squirrels and conventional squirrels are regarded by some as in the same family. No one is questioning that. There is no suggestion that the conventional squirrel is a precursor to the flying squirrelÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ only that they share a common ancestor.

And if they share a common ancestor with both surviving to the present, does this then qualify as a living transitional?

What is a mosaic re animal classifications/evolution/creation?

A platypus is what I regard as mosaic, because it exhibits fully developed features of two different classes of animalsÃ¢â‚¬Â¦. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s hairy integument is as fully differentiated as the hair of other mammals. ItÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s reproductive system is likewise not transitional. In the case of Archaeopteryx, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s feathers are not transitionalÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ they are fully avian. It is a peculiar bird with some reptile-like features. You once stated that Ã¢â‚¬Å“cross-pollinationÃ¢â‚¬Â would be evidence of creation, yet you use Archaopteryx as evidence of evolution.

What you regard? So is this a term that is in common Ã¢â‚¬ËœcreationistÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ language? Is there a definition on how to determine a mosaic? Is the mammal a mosaic of a monotreme or a monotreme a mosaic of a mammal? Seems to me to be a ridiculous sort of classification as one could make any sort of claim based on a feature.

There is some common ground that we need to establish. A.) No direct ancestors exist in the evolutionary tree of life. B.) A cod or trout did not evolve into a salamander. C.) Some common ancestor of the cod or trout evolved. D.) Modern fish are peripheral branches, not direct ancestors to man. E.) As I have emphasized numerous times, no evolutionary tree of life suggests that a fish is a direct ancestor of man, only that the both share a hypothetical common ancestor.

my paragraphing.

In reply:a. this seems to depend on the distance from whatever is being observed if they are too close you claim itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s microevolution. You need to define how fare apart they have to be so that you want use that claim.b. Agreedc. Yes a fishd. Agreede. Not a specific living fish, but certainly a fish.

If a pick a couple of animals that are too close you say itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not evolution but microevolution, if I pick a couple too far apart you say one is not the direct ancestor!

. f. You still havenÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t given me any reason as to why a direct ancestor doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t exist in the living world g. If man evolved from a fish-like animal, then why have the countless transitional forms that must have existed between fish and man become extinct? h. A gorilla is not a direct ancestorÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ neither is a chimp, dog, lizard, salamander, or any species of fish. i. If you contend that all human ancestors have continually evolved, then youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re contradicting the observation that many species are static over eons of time. j. The theory of evolution does not require that species changeÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ yet youÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re stating that everything invariably doesÃ¢â‚¬Â¦ thus explaining the lack of any direct living ancestors.

my paragraphing.

F.) Because you cannot define what you will qualify as a direct ancestor like I said before no matter what I propose they either fall into Ã¢â‚¬ËœmicroevolutionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, or Ã¢â‚¬Ëœnot the direct ancestorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, under your definitions.G.) Because all life adapts to change, and there has been a great deal of change.H.) (of man I presume) then I agree.I.) This is not a contradiction, there is no part of the ToE that states there is a rate of evolution, if conditions remain favourable and the environment unchanging evolution will be relatively slow. If the environment changes life must evolve or die. An even if conditions are good where that environment buts up against a different environment itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s likely the species will branch.J.) Again you are make a dilemma where non exists. The outward appearance shows that some animals have changed relatively little e.g. shark, no problem there one can argue that the ocean is a relatively stable environment. Change the watery environment to a seasonal lake and change/evolution becomes more rapid. the rate of evolution is dependant upon the environment

The fact that all of the basic animal kinds can be classified as existing in well defined, isolated, distinct groups within groups in the living world is strong evidence for the systemetic lack of transitional phylogeny in the living world between the basic kinds. In regards to the evolutionary excuse that extinction caused this Denton wrote:

"But surely no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the trunk and branches of the supposed tree, and left all remaining groups: mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises, vertebrates, molluscs, hymenoptera, fleas and so on, so isolated and related only in a strict sisterly sense." Evolution: A Theory in Crisis p.136

The fact that all of the basic animal kinds can be classified as existing in well defined, isolated, distinct groups within groups in the living world is strong evidence for the systemetic lack of transitional phylogeny in the living world between the basic kinds. In regards to the evolutionary excuse that extinction caused this Denton wrote:

"But surely no purely random process of extinction would have eliminated so effectively all ancestral and transitional forms, all evidence of the trunk and branches of the supposed tree, and left all remaining groups: mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises, vertebrates, molluscs, hymenoptera, fleas and so on, so isolated and related only in a strict sisterly sense." Evolution: A Theory in Crisis p.136

The problem is that an example like Wolf and Dog is rejected as not being Ã¢â‚¬ËœrealÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evolution, but as microevolution, and Fish and Man rejected because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the direct ancestor. Apparently I need to find some arbitrary middle ground!

The problem is that an example like Wolf and Dog is rejected as not being Ã¢â‚¬ËœrealÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evolution, but as microevolution, and Fish and Man rejected because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the direct ancestor. Apparently I need to find some arbitrary middle ground!

There's nothing "arbitrary" about asking for evidence of macroevolution. You contend that man evolved from a fish, yet you cannot produce a single living example of an ancestor. Even the fish is not a direct ancestor. Despite the fact that man allegedly evolved though millions of intermediate forms, you have no problem accepting the fact that not one of these ancestral species remains today. You have agreed that evolution is not universal, i.e., species may remain static for eons. In the same breath, you suggest that every precursor to man has become extinct and has become replaced by constantly evolving species. It is common knowlege among evolutionists that species do not always evolve. Therefore, you have no explanation as to why no direct ancestors exist.

The problem is that an example like Wolf and Dog is rejected as not being Ã¢â‚¬ËœrealÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evolution, but as microevolution, and Fish and Man rejected because itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s not the direct ancestor. Apparently I need to find some arbitrary middle ground!

1.) There's nothing "arbitrary" about asking for evidence of macroevolution.2.) You contend that man evolved from a fish, yet you cannot produce a single living example of an ancestor. Even the fish is not a direct ancestor. 3.) Despite the fact that man allegedly evolved though millions of intermediate forms, you have no problem accepting the fact that not one of these ancestral species remains today. 4.) You have agreed that evolution is not universal, i.e., species may remain static for eons. In the same breath, you suggest that every precursor to man has become extinct and has become replaced by constantly evolving species. 5.) It is common knowlege among evolutionists that species do not always evolve. Therefore, you have no explanation as to why no direct ancestors exist.

my paragraphing.

1.) It is when the definition excludes an answer.2.) Fish have remained in the ocean, those that evolved into land living species are hardly likely to compete very well against species that went the next step and became fully land living. (they will nave been Ã¢â‚¬Ëœout evolvedÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ by their own descendantsÃ¢â‚¬â„¢.3.) No, no problem at all, in fact that is to be the expected outcome. As environments change, life evolves to cope, life is continually responding to new challenges. A change in one environment can affect itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s neighbouring environment if some new animal now wanders into an adjacent area, thus upsetting the ecological balance, the evolutionary response is that the indigenous life must adapt to that new situation. Everything is connected to everything else. To have the situation you are asking for requires a sort of Ã¢â‚¬Å“Lost WorldÃ¢â‚¬Â scenario.4.) Evolution is universal, the rate of evolution is not fixed it can be near zero to some upper limit. That Ã¢â‚¬ËœstaticÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evolution must be treated with caution as fossils only show the outward appearance. The inference is on Ã¢â‚¬Å“may remain staticÃ¢â‚¬Â if the environment remains static. Thus we have fish, whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s body plan has basically remained static, yet evolution has not stopped for them, as they have evolved into myriads of species. Do you class this as, evolution or static?5.) Again you are creating a dilemma where non exists, as I have shown with the Wolf Dog example. The phrase Ã¢â‚¬Å“do not always evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â is subjective and difficult to find an example that would qualify under the restrictive definitions you are using. E.g.

Moth/Butterfly, Chimp/Bonobo, Zebra/Horse, etc, where is the dividing line between micro and macro evolution?

The problem for evolutionists is the systematic pattern that we see in the living world today (see my previous comments). Things such as ring species, and wolf/dog variations do not in any sense invalidate this basic pattern of the systematic lack of transitional phylogeny in the living world between the basic kinds*, but instead reflect horizontal variation* * within the kinds and not transitional phylogeny between them.

*As evidence by the fact that all of the basic animal kinds can be classified as existing in well defined, isolated, distinct groups within groups in the living world. (e.g. from Denton "mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises, vertebrates, molluscs, hymenoptera, fleas" also monkeys, reptiles, snakes, etc. etc.).

In reality it seems to me that the only way to explain this systematic pattern from an evolutionary perspective is to claim that some sort of process of extinction systematically removed (regarding basic kinds) virtually all (or all) evidence of "the trunk and branches of the supposed tree" from the living world. (see Denton)

Evolution is universal, the rate of evolution is not fixed it can be near zero to some upper limit.Ã‚Â That Ã¢â‚¬ËœstaticÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evolution must be treated with caution as fossils only show the outward appearance.Ã‚Â The inference is on Ã¢â‚¬Å“may remain staticÃ¢â‚¬Â if the environment remains static. Thus we have fish, whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s body plan has basically remained static, yet evolution has not stopped for them, as they have evolved into myriads of species. Do you class this as, evolution or static?

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re obviously using the fossil record to support your preconceived ideas. This is the first time IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard an evolutionist suggest that the fossil record should be interpreted with caution. You are very willing to make all sorts of assumptions that transitional species exist based only on fossilized skeletal remains. Now, when it is apparent that species donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t change over time (according to the fossil record), you assume that the fossil record isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t telling the whole story.

Again you are creating a dilemma where non exists, as I have shown with the Wolf Dog example. The phrase Ã¢â‚¬Å“do not always evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â is subjective and difficult to find an example that would qualify under the restrictive definitions you are using. E.g.

Moth/Butterfly, Chimp/Bonobo, Zebra/Horse, etc, where is the dividing line between micro and macro evolution?

You are deliberately trying to muddy the water in an attempt to win the argument. I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t specifically define the dividing line between macro- and microevolution, but that does not suggest that one does not exist. Anyone would agree that it is impossible for a man to run a mile in one minute. Can you show me the Ã¢â‚¬Å“dividing lineÃ¢â‚¬Â between what speed is possible and what speed is not? Just because you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t define what is impossible and what isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t prove anything. There is still a point beyond which it becomes impossible, even if you can't define it. Everyone knows that thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an enormous difference between a wolf evolving into a dog vs a mouse evolving into a bat. The difference is not just the addition of time. Domestic dogs have been bred for over 5,000 years. They are still dogs. They are no closer to being elephants or rodents than they were in ancient Egypt

Evolution is universal, the rate of evolution is not fixed it can be near zero to some upper limit. That Ã¢â‚¬ËœstaticÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ evolution must be treated with caution as fossils only show the outward appearance. The inference is on Ã¢â‚¬Å“may remain staticÃ¢â‚¬Â if the environment remains static. Thus we have fish, whoÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s body plan has basically remained static, yet evolution has not stopped for them, as they have evolved into myriads of species. Do you class this as, evolution or static?

YouÃ¢â‚¬â„¢re obviously using the fossil record to support your preconceived ideas. a.)This is the first time IÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ve heard an evolutionist suggest that the fossil record should be interpreted with caution. b.)You are very willing to make all sorts of assumptions that transitional species exist based only on fossilized skeletal remains. Now, when it is apparent that species donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t change over time (according to the fossil record), you assume that the fossil record isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t telling the whole story.

my paragraphing.

a.) common knowledge Ã¢â‚¬â€œ fossilisation is only on the bones, how can one possibly know about skin or feathers? (unless under the most ideal circumstances). e.g. did tyrannosaurus have feathers? DonÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t know.b.) The existence of a transitional species is seems, can be accepted by an evolutionist but not by a YEC because of a difference in opinion on what qualifies. E.g. I see nothing wrong with Wolf/Dog, yet you do not because you have a different opinion as what qualifies. I donÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t see how we can get past this quandary.

Again you are creating a dilemma where non exists, as I have shown with the Wolf Dog example. The phrase Ã¢â‚¬Å“do not always evolveÃ¢â‚¬Â is subjective and difficult to find an example that would qualify under the restrictive definitions you are using. E.g.

Moth/Butterfly, Chimp/Bonobo, Zebra/Horse, etc, where is the dividing line between micro and macro evolution?

a.) You are deliberately trying to muddy the water in an attempt to win the argument.b.) I canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t specifically define the dividing line between macro- and microevolution, but that does not suggest that one does not exist. c.) Anyone would agree that it is impossible for a man to run a mile in one minute. Can you show me the Ã¢â‚¬Å“dividing lineÃ¢â‚¬Â between what speed is possible and what speed is not? d.) Just because you canÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t define what is impossible and what isnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t doesnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t prove anything. There is still a point beyond which it becomes impossible, even if you can't define it. Everyone knows that thereÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s an enormous difference between a wolf evolving into a dog vs a mouse evolving into a bat. The difference is not just the addition of time. Domestic dogs have been bred for over 5,000 years. They are still dogs. They are no closer to being elephants or rodents than they were in ancient Egypt

my paragraphing.

A.) I assure you it not deliberate, I am trying to show that the question is unanswerable with the qualifications you impose.B.) The ToE does not propose any such Ã¢â‚¬Å“dividing lineÃ¢â‚¬Â.C.) I suspect it would be exponential formula, eventually limited by certain physics.D.) I agree some things are impossible (or should that be very improbable?) no matter how much time is available, e.g. to get an insect to evolve into a mammal. Wolf to Dog has been in progress for at least 12000, 14000 years ago according to this article LINK

which leads to the problem, supposing the two animals pictures were only known by there fossils, would you classify them as separate species? Because DNA wise they are practically identical. See this link LINK

When Wayne looked at his canine mitochondrial DNA samples, he found that wolves and coyotes differ by about 6% in their mitochondrial DNA, while wolves and dogs differ by only 1%. Already it smelled like the wolf was the ancestor.

The problem for evolutionists is the systematic pattern that we see in the living world today (see my previous comments). Things such as ring species, and wolf/dog variations do not in any sense invalidate this basic pattern of the systematic lack of transitional phylogeny in the living world between the basic kinds*, but instead reflect horizontal variation* * within the kinds and not transitional phylogeny between them.

I am familiar with the YEC concept of kind being fixed and all that we see is a Ã¢â‚¬ËœdriftÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ from that kind. This difficulty is that the proposed mechanism for this drift is exactly the same as the evolution, i.e. mutation, yes? Please correct me if I am wrong on this point. So it seems to me that you are comfortable with Dog/Wolf being Ã¢â‚¬ËœtransitionalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, provided that it is not called Ã¢â‚¬ËœtransitionalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ but rather microevolution, yes? Or as you have put it horizontal variation. Basically no matter what underlying theory you hold to be true, the unescapable fact is that mutation causes change. Can we at least agree on this point?

As evidence by the fact that all of the basic animal kinds can be classified as existing in well defined, isolated, distinct groups within groups in the living world. (e.g. from Denton "mammals, cats, flowering plants, birds, tortoises, vertebrates, molluscs, hymenoptera, fleas" also monkeys, reptiles, snakes, etc. etc.).

It should be pointed out that these classifications are somewhat arbitrary when dealing with large amounts of time, e.g. in evolutionary speak, when did a dinosaur become a bird? If we were alive at the time what would you classify a dinosaur that did or did not have feathers.

In reality it seems to me that the only way to explain this systematic pattern from an evolutionary perspective is to claim that some sort of process of extinction systematically removed (regarding basic kinds) virtually all (or all) evidence of "the trunk and branches of the supposed tree" from the living world. (see Denton)

Extinction is certainly an important factor. One should not think of evolution as a straight line leaving a paper trail behind it, itÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s more like a relay race. E.g. Each runner is trying to remember a sentence (the baton), then pass it on verbally to the next group of runners with only the winner passing on the message to the next group.

I am familiar with the YEC concept of kind being fixed and all that we see is a Ã¢â‚¬ËœdriftÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ from that kind. This difficulty is that the proposed mechanism for this drift is exactly the same as the evolution, i.e. mutation, yes? Please correct me if I am wrong on this point.

Actually the main mechanism for the lateral variation within the kind would involve genetic recombination and sorting of existing alleles/ genetic information rather than mutation. http://www.answersin..._25June2001.asp

So it seems to me that you are comfortable with Dog/Wolf being Ã¢â‚¬ËœtransitionalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, provided that it is not called Ã¢â‚¬ËœtransitionalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ but rather microevolution, yes? Or as you have put it horizontal variation.

The use of terms such as "transitional" or (even "microevolution") to describe recent changes (caused by primarily by recombination of existing alleles) within a basic kind of animal, does not help to clarify in an origins debate. Terms such as "lateral variation"; "horizontal variation" etc. more accurately convey the type of observed change in animals and don't have the automatic "Evolution" equivocation supporting semantics built in.

Basically no matter what underlying theory you hold to be true, the unescapable fact is that mutation causes change. Can we at least agree on this point?

Yes everyone* agrees that mutation cause change, however molecules-to-man evolution would have required more than mere "change"- such as copious amounts of new genetic information, the formation of new complex biological systems, reproductive systems, basic animal types, etc. etc.

*Creationists believe that mutation has caused a limited amount of (primarily deleterious/ neutral) change within kinds since the fall/flood.

I am familiar with the YEC concept of kind being fixed and all that we see is a Ã¢â‚¬ËœdriftÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ from that kind. This difficulty is that the proposed mechanism for this drift is exactly the same as the evolution, i.e. mutation, yes? Please correct me if I am wrong on this point.

Actually the main mechanism for the lateral variation within the kind would involve genetic recombination and sorting of existing alleles/ genetic information rather than mutation. http://www.answersin..._25June2001.asp

Hmmmm not according to AiG Here we have a confusion of different issues. Do mutations contribute to the variety we see in things such as domestic dog breeds? Most certainly which links to Is your dog some kind of degenerate mutant? . In this second link it only argues the Ã¢â‚¬Å“imperfection of a dog, and totally fails to address the wild Ã¢â‚¬Å“fox and coyote etcÃ¢â‚¬Â which have presumably got to where they are by the same means, could you argue they are Ã¢â‚¬Å“worse offÃ¢â‚¬Â than a wolf? IMO no.

So it seems to me that you are comfortable with Dog/Wolf being Ã¢â‚¬ËœtransitionalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢, provided that it is not called Ã¢â‚¬ËœtransitionalÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ but rather microevolution, yes? Or as you have put it horizontal variation.

The use of terms such as "transitional" or (even "microevolution") to describe recent changes (caused by primarily by recombination of existing alleles) within a basic kind of animal, does not help to clarify in an origins debate. Terms such as "lateral variation"; "horizontal variation" etc. more accurately convey the type of observed change in animals and don't have the automatic "Evolution" equivocation supporting semantics built in.

Ok but you will need some evidence for this POV, what is it?

Basically no matter what underlying theory you hold to be true, the unescapable fact is that mutation causes change. Can we at least agree on this point?

Yes everyone* agrees that mutation cause change, however molecules-to-man evolution would have required more than mere "change"- such as copious amounts of new genetic information, the formation of new complex biological systems, reproductive systems, basic animal types, etc. etc.

Ok, from the YEC perspective, what limits mutation from Ã¢â‚¬Å“going all the wayÃ¢â‚¬Â? I might suggest a new topic if this requires much discussion, so this on can be kept for evidence of a transitional.